| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 15:40:31 +0800
From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
To: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
CC: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm, proc: add PcpFree to meminfo
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 05:24:07PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>
> On 2022/8/16 16:48, huang ying wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 4:38 PM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com> wrote:
> > > From: Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>
> > >
> > > The page on pcplist could be used, but not counted into memory free or
> > > avaliable, and pcp_free is only showed by show_mem(). Since commit
> > > d8a759b57035 ("mm, page_alloc: double zone's batchsize"), there is a
> > > significant decrease in the display of free memory, with a large number
> > > of cpus and nodes, the number of pages in the percpu list can be very
> > > large, so it is better to let user to know the pcp count.
> > Can you show some data?
>
> 80M+ with 72cpus/2node
>
80M+ for a 2 node system doesn't sound like a significant number.
> >
> > Another choice is to count PCP free pages in MemFree. Is that OK for
> > your use case too?
>
> Yes, the user will make policy according to MemFree, we think count PCP free
> pages
>
> in MemFree is better, but don't know whether it is right way.
>
Is there a real problem where user makes a sub-optimal policy due to the
not accounted 80M+ free memory?
Counting PCP pages as free seems natural, since they are indeed free
pages. One concern is, there might be much more calls of
__mod_zone_freepage_state() if you do free page counting for PCP pages,
not sure if that would hurt performance. Also, you will need to
differentiate in __free_one_page() whether counting for free pages are
still needed since some pages are freed through PCP(and thus already
counted) while some are not.
BTW, since commit b92ca18e8ca59("mm/page_alloc: disassociate the pcp->high
from pcp->batch"), pcp size is no longer associated with batch size. Is
it that you are testing on an older kernel?
Thanks,
Aaron
> > > Signed-off-by: Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/base/node.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> > > fs/proc/meminfo.c | 9 +++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c
> > > index eb0f43784c2b..846864e45db6 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/node.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/node.c
> > > @@ -375,6 +375,9 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct device *dev,
> > > struct sysinfo i;
> > > unsigned long sreclaimable, sunreclaimable;
> > > unsigned long swapcached = 0;
> > > + unsigned long free_pcp = 0;
> > > + struct zone *zone;
> > > + int cpu;
> > >
> > > si_meminfo_node(&i, nid);
> > > sreclaimable = node_page_state_pages(pgdat, NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B);
> > > @@ -382,9 +385,17 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct device *dev,
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_SWAP
> > > swapcached = node_page_state_pages(pgdat, NR_SWAPCACHE);
> > > #endif
> > > + for_each_populated_zone(zone) {
> > > + if (zone_to_nid(zone) != nid)
> > > + continue;
> > > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> > > + free_pcp += per_cpu_ptr(zone->per_cpu_pageset, cpu)->count;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > len = sysfs_emit_at(buf, len,
> > > "Node %d MemTotal: %8lu kB\n"
> > > "Node %d MemFree: %8lu kB\n"
> > > + "Node %d PcpFree: %8lu kB\n"
> > > "Node %d MemUsed: %8lu kB\n"
> > > "Node %d SwapCached: %8lu kB\n"
> > > "Node %d Active: %8lu kB\n"
> > > @@ -397,7 +408,8 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct device *dev,
> > > "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n",
> > > nid, K(i.totalram),
> > > nid, K(i.freeram),
> > > - nid, K(i.totalram - i.freeram),
> > > + nid, K(free_pcp),
> > > + nid, K(i.totalram - i.freeram - free_pcp),
> > > nid, K(swapcached),
> > > nid, K(node_page_state(pgdat, NR_ACTIVE_ANON) +
> > > node_page_state(pgdat, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
> > > diff --git a/fs/proc/meminfo.c b/fs/proc/meminfo.c
> > > index 6e89f0e2fd20..672c784dfc8a 100644
> > > --- a/fs/proc/meminfo.c
> > > +++ b/fs/proc/meminfo.c
> > > @@ -38,6 +38,9 @@ static int meminfo_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > unsigned long pages[NR_LRU_LISTS];
> > > unsigned long sreclaimable, sunreclaim;
> > > int lru;
> > > + unsigned long free_pcp = 0;
> > > + struct zone *zone;
> > > + int cpu;
> > >
> > > si_meminfo(&i);
> > > si_swapinfo(&i);
> > > @@ -55,8 +58,14 @@ static int meminfo_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > sreclaimable = global_node_page_state_pages(NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B);
> > > sunreclaim = global_node_page_state_pages(NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B);
> > >
> > > + for_each_populated_zone(zone) {
> > > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> > > + free_pcp += per_cpu_ptr(zone->per_cpu_pageset, cpu)->count;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > show_val_kb(m, "MemTotal: ", i.totalram);
> > > show_val_kb(m, "MemFree: ", i.freeram);
> > > + show_val_kb(m, "PcpFree: ", free_pcp);
> > > show_val_kb(m, "MemAvailable: ", available);
> > > show_val_kb(m, "Buffers: ", i.bufferram);
> > > show_val_kb(m, "Cached: ", cached);
> > > --
> > > 2.35.3
> > >
> > >
> > .
Powered by blists - more mailing lists